KarmicRain
Member
- Mar 27, 2023
- 62
So I ended up reaching a conclusion after answering 2 questions:
1. do we have enough resources for every human being on earth?
2. Is greed human nature?
1. yes: there are enough resources for every person on earth. our current land being used for farming is about half a billion acres of land (2800 calories per human). there's 36 billion acres of land on earth, 15.6 billion of which is inhabitable alongside 8.5 billion people. (an entire fucking acre is a lot of space for a person, we don't need that much but this proves a point I make later)
7 billion acres of land are left over for whatever the fuck. lets literally double crop production, using 1 billion acres specifically to feed humanity.
that leaves 6 billion for fuck all (nature, external facilities, whatever the fuck we want).
now look at this: an acre is like 43,000 sq ft. an average house is 2,500 sq ft and a mansion (on average) is about 8,000-10,000. even if every single person had a mansion, that'd make up 25% of the land they have. 5600 calories of a variety of foodstuffs per person daily exists.
For a superhuman that's 7ft tall, 275lb, and is extremely active, they only need 5k calories.
like we not only have enough for everyone but there's enough for everyone to live a life lavishly equivalent to a millionaire.
the main problems arise from the stupid costs we place upon "luxuries" that millionaires have. sure supply and demand laws must be followed, but if our economy is not based solely in profit, (meaning costs equal the exact amount in comparison to resources), everyone would be fine. Basically, everyone could live as lavishly as humanly imaginable and there'd still be plenty more resources in excess.
NOW, in this theoretical world, I'm not saying capitalism won't exist. it literally still could and probably would. I will explain disproportioned wealth not only being completely fine, but actually more optimal to society as a whole.
2. no humans are not greedy in nature
We place way to much value on money as a result of a society that was created due to it simply being the most optimal root. The end of the age of monarchy and feudalism occurred since of course, kings and aristocrats are not perfect. More specifically, lot of them were corrupt as fuck those under them felt that things were wrong. They were correct since failure of proper allocation of resources like food for example will result in a very very mad majority population. Same can be said with attempted tyranny: usage of force to control everything results in an extremely oppressed majority. If choices are to literally starve to death or fight for a chance to not starve, they'd be inclined to choose the latter.
Anyway, those in control of the successful regicides/revolutions were people in the upper middle class: specifically rich-ish merchants, aristocrats, or leading figures. I'm going to use America as the example for this case: they didn't do regicide but did succeed in a revolution, resulting in separation from Great Britain. The founding fathers were the ones who made the rules since they were the ones considered powerful in an area where we arbitrarily decided that knowledge=power. This made logical sense since of course, someone more knowledgeable should have been able to make better decisions than someone who was not. However, they were still human beings and did not make a perfect complete constitution. They did however make it with the idea of change to it being added since of course, change would continue to happen over time as the independent states developed. However, with time the US gradually shifted through the industrial revolution and the growing capitalistic economy. It was assumed that growth of economy directly improved quality of life for everyone since if the economy of a nation grows, so too does the wealth of its people. This is assumed through the concept of trickle down economics where if a business and it's owners gain more wealth, so too does its workers. That is false. This is what lead to the growing class gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (owners and workers). In a capitalistic economy and society, money directly translates to power. Therefore, those in power became the the rich: the owners of businesses. laissez faire (free market) was a mistake because it directly changed the control of society and the government: The US is no longer a Democratic republic. It's a monetary-focused class based system. Laws are technically not controlled by the rich but they really are through the power of the revolving door, gerrymandering, and of course lobbying.
Now this is not inherently bad, but what is bad is the actions of those in control: they continue to accrue wealth due to expecting an infinitely growing economy in a world with limited resources (and horribly allocated at that. ) This is objectively wrong. Supply and demand is a universal law: there will never be an infinite supply.
The rich get richer because they are the ones with power and use said power to amass wealth. But if humans are not inherently greedy, why?
They amass wealth because the act of amassing wealth is what they use to fill what we call "the void." The void exists in the absence of the feeling of fulfillment: aka "the meaning of life"(philosophically) . Seeing a number increase directly represents an increase of their money, status, and power. Attaining this is both their ultimate goal and one they reasonably achieve successfully: this is what they feel for the meaning of life. This logic is flawed. Material wealth should not be amassed for its own sake because that's what has caused crony capitalism.
The reason being: having a bigger number does not actually net more happiness. Proof: A billionaire can still commit suicide. Thomas H. Lee is a perfect example: He was a billionaire and in turn had a lot of status and power; despite that, he was not happy with life. Otherwise, billionaires would mathematically be billions of times happier than someone who was dirt poor.
The meaning of life or fulfillment is attained through working to achieve a goal subjectively determined to be meaningful. The billionaire died due to having so much money that increases in it for him was not meaningful at all relatively to his net worth.
For a goal to have meaning, it must give someone something they can determine to have worth. They also have to be able to accomplish it at reasonable intervals and success rate. For example, a scientist: They find meaning through constantly learning new facts of life in whatever field they study. Actual fulfilment is achieved not upon learning something new, but through the action of attempting to. achievement of knowledge is their goal here: they are able to continually amass more and release it to potentially benefit society. Another example would be a farmer: simply having the goal of a successful harvest. It's requires a relatively high amount of effort and of course results in a yield they are able to view as equivalent in terms of value. The "fruits of labor" is important, but it's the meaning in life is the labor. Not the fruit.
A charity worker is another example: They meaning is found through the act of helping others. Fulfillment in helping someone in need is actually sustainable as a "meaning for life" since someone is always in need in an imperfect world. Because humans are social by nature, helping other humans brings about the feeling of meaning. (This is not true of those in everyone of the modern age who've been indoctrinated the idea that infinite money is all that matters) A human is worth more to another human than an increasing number. (only true when basic needs are filled, not when that number literally decides their survival)
An engineer aims to create more efficiency in whatever their specialty is. The world will probably never become perfectly efficient, meaning that engineers will always be able to find a goal to achieve.
The economic example would be an entrepreneur: growth of their company and influence would be their goal which would in turn increase their amount of wealth. It's difficult to grow a small company, but the attempts at achieving success fill the entrepreneur with meaning.
Here's the main difference with the thing: Knowledge can be continually attained (within a lifetime). Crops will always be needed (we always need to eat). In an imperfect world, there will never be "no one in need" or 100% efficiency in everything. But, infinite growth in wealth or the economy is not a sustainable goal: It has to have meaning relative to the person. A billionaire getting a million dollars won't care that much: it's just the number slightly increasing.
What they need to understand is that all of the luxuries and way of life that comes with being a billionaire are the same with being a millionaire. The number of wealth increasing is not a permanently sustainable method of feeling fulfilled: It's what results in a capitalistic dystopia. Even with less than 1% of their wealth, they could still have a big cozy shelter with modern utilities and food. Only things that aren't exactly the same is expecting to have things that are low in supply naturally like precious metals, a coat from an endangered species, or specific delicacies. None of these actually matter in the end. Superficial/material objects can always lose meaning.
No, what actually matters is proper allocation of materials to give everyone at living essentials. I'm certain that even after that's achieved, people will still work for the sake of achieving fulfillment.
In the meantime, our society should head to the goal of giving every human enough to live comfortably.
I do also want to add that my theory can work with capitalism because after giving everyone what they need, there are still an abundance of resources (for now). This won't be the case if we continue going down this road. Owners of business and workers can co-exist when they both find value in their efforts: a general forward movement for the better of society can easily be one. Those who own businesses have more money and therefore more responsibility: they can get the same dopamine from numbers increasing. Only now they'd be able to do it for the better of society rather than solely for the sake of wealth. More money will still equal more power and status, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I for one am a lazy fuck and would hate owning a billion dollars worth of corporations if I had to personally oversee them (real ones don't have to give a fuck since they got people in managerial positions. this wouldn't be a problem if their overall goals were to better society rather than to just accrue wealth).
sources: eh most of my statistics were just googled.
Second Thought (most of my socialist-left wing views)
Human nature
Unabomber Manifesto: (I've only read up to page 14, point 67.)
1. do we have enough resources for every human being on earth?
2. Is greed human nature?
1. yes: there are enough resources for every person on earth. our current land being used for farming is about half a billion acres of land (2800 calories per human). there's 36 billion acres of land on earth, 15.6 billion of which is inhabitable alongside 8.5 billion people. (an entire fucking acre is a lot of space for a person, we don't need that much but this proves a point I make later)
7 billion acres of land are left over for whatever the fuck. lets literally double crop production, using 1 billion acres specifically to feed humanity.
that leaves 6 billion for fuck all (nature, external facilities, whatever the fuck we want).
now look at this: an acre is like 43,000 sq ft. an average house is 2,500 sq ft and a mansion (on average) is about 8,000-10,000. even if every single person had a mansion, that'd make up 25% of the land they have. 5600 calories of a variety of foodstuffs per person daily exists.
For a superhuman that's 7ft tall, 275lb, and is extremely active, they only need 5k calories.
like we not only have enough for everyone but there's enough for everyone to live a life lavishly equivalent to a millionaire.
the main problems arise from the stupid costs we place upon "luxuries" that millionaires have. sure supply and demand laws must be followed, but if our economy is not based solely in profit, (meaning costs equal the exact amount in comparison to resources), everyone would be fine. Basically, everyone could live as lavishly as humanly imaginable and there'd still be plenty more resources in excess.
NOW, in this theoretical world, I'm not saying capitalism won't exist. it literally still could and probably would. I will explain disproportioned wealth not only being completely fine, but actually more optimal to society as a whole.
2. no humans are not greedy in nature
We place way to much value on money as a result of a society that was created due to it simply being the most optimal root. The end of the age of monarchy and feudalism occurred since of course, kings and aristocrats are not perfect. More specifically, lot of them were corrupt as fuck those under them felt that things were wrong. They were correct since failure of proper allocation of resources like food for example will result in a very very mad majority population. Same can be said with attempted tyranny: usage of force to control everything results in an extremely oppressed majority. If choices are to literally starve to death or fight for a chance to not starve, they'd be inclined to choose the latter.
Anyway, those in control of the successful regicides/revolutions were people in the upper middle class: specifically rich-ish merchants, aristocrats, or leading figures. I'm going to use America as the example for this case: they didn't do regicide but did succeed in a revolution, resulting in separation from Great Britain. The founding fathers were the ones who made the rules since they were the ones considered powerful in an area where we arbitrarily decided that knowledge=power. This made logical sense since of course, someone more knowledgeable should have been able to make better decisions than someone who was not. However, they were still human beings and did not make a perfect complete constitution. They did however make it with the idea of change to it being added since of course, change would continue to happen over time as the independent states developed. However, with time the US gradually shifted through the industrial revolution and the growing capitalistic economy. It was assumed that growth of economy directly improved quality of life for everyone since if the economy of a nation grows, so too does the wealth of its people. This is assumed through the concept of trickle down economics where if a business and it's owners gain more wealth, so too does its workers. That is false. This is what lead to the growing class gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (owners and workers). In a capitalistic economy and society, money directly translates to power. Therefore, those in power became the the rich: the owners of businesses. laissez faire (free market) was a mistake because it directly changed the control of society and the government: The US is no longer a Democratic republic. It's a monetary-focused class based system. Laws are technically not controlled by the rich but they really are through the power of the revolving door, gerrymandering, and of course lobbying.
Now this is not inherently bad, but what is bad is the actions of those in control: they continue to accrue wealth due to expecting an infinitely growing economy in a world with limited resources (and horribly allocated at that. ) This is objectively wrong. Supply and demand is a universal law: there will never be an infinite supply.
The rich get richer because they are the ones with power and use said power to amass wealth. But if humans are not inherently greedy, why?
They amass wealth because the act of amassing wealth is what they use to fill what we call "the void." The void exists in the absence of the feeling of fulfillment: aka "the meaning of life"(philosophically) . Seeing a number increase directly represents an increase of their money, status, and power. Attaining this is both their ultimate goal and one they reasonably achieve successfully: this is what they feel for the meaning of life. This logic is flawed. Material wealth should not be amassed for its own sake because that's what has caused crony capitalism.
The reason being: having a bigger number does not actually net more happiness. Proof: A billionaire can still commit suicide. Thomas H. Lee is a perfect example: He was a billionaire and in turn had a lot of status and power; despite that, he was not happy with life. Otherwise, billionaires would mathematically be billions of times happier than someone who was dirt poor.
The meaning of life or fulfillment is attained through working to achieve a goal subjectively determined to be meaningful. The billionaire died due to having so much money that increases in it for him was not meaningful at all relatively to his net worth.
For a goal to have meaning, it must give someone something they can determine to have worth. They also have to be able to accomplish it at reasonable intervals and success rate. For example, a scientist: They find meaning through constantly learning new facts of life in whatever field they study. Actual fulfilment is achieved not upon learning something new, but through the action of attempting to. achievement of knowledge is their goal here: they are able to continually amass more and release it to potentially benefit society. Another example would be a farmer: simply having the goal of a successful harvest. It's requires a relatively high amount of effort and of course results in a yield they are able to view as equivalent in terms of value. The "fruits of labor" is important, but it's the meaning in life is the labor. Not the fruit.
A charity worker is another example: They meaning is found through the act of helping others. Fulfillment in helping someone in need is actually sustainable as a "meaning for life" since someone is always in need in an imperfect world. Because humans are social by nature, helping other humans brings about the feeling of meaning. (This is not true of those in everyone of the modern age who've been indoctrinated the idea that infinite money is all that matters) A human is worth more to another human than an increasing number. (only true when basic needs are filled, not when that number literally decides their survival)
An engineer aims to create more efficiency in whatever their specialty is. The world will probably never become perfectly efficient, meaning that engineers will always be able to find a goal to achieve.
The economic example would be an entrepreneur: growth of their company and influence would be their goal which would in turn increase their amount of wealth. It's difficult to grow a small company, but the attempts at achieving success fill the entrepreneur with meaning.
Here's the main difference with the thing: Knowledge can be continually attained (within a lifetime). Crops will always be needed (we always need to eat). In an imperfect world, there will never be "no one in need" or 100% efficiency in everything. But, infinite growth in wealth or the economy is not a sustainable goal: It has to have meaning relative to the person. A billionaire getting a million dollars won't care that much: it's just the number slightly increasing.
What they need to understand is that all of the luxuries and way of life that comes with being a billionaire are the same with being a millionaire. The number of wealth increasing is not a permanently sustainable method of feeling fulfilled: It's what results in a capitalistic dystopia. Even with less than 1% of their wealth, they could still have a big cozy shelter with modern utilities and food. Only things that aren't exactly the same is expecting to have things that are low in supply naturally like precious metals, a coat from an endangered species, or specific delicacies. None of these actually matter in the end. Superficial/material objects can always lose meaning.
No, what actually matters is proper allocation of materials to give everyone at living essentials. I'm certain that even after that's achieved, people will still work for the sake of achieving fulfillment.
In the meantime, our society should head to the goal of giving every human enough to live comfortably.
I do also want to add that my theory can work with capitalism because after giving everyone what they need, there are still an abundance of resources (for now). This won't be the case if we continue going down this road. Owners of business and workers can co-exist when they both find value in their efforts: a general forward movement for the better of society can easily be one. Those who own businesses have more money and therefore more responsibility: they can get the same dopamine from numbers increasing. Only now they'd be able to do it for the better of society rather than solely for the sake of wealth. More money will still equal more power and status, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I for one am a lazy fuck and would hate owning a billion dollars worth of corporations if I had to personally oversee them (real ones don't have to give a fuck since they got people in managerial positions. this wouldn't be a problem if their overall goals were to better society rather than to just accrue wealth).
sources: eh most of my statistics were just googled.
Second Thought (most of my socialist-left wing views)
Human nature
Unabomber Manifesto: (I've only read up to page 14, point 67.)
